Rafizi should be fair when criticising Anwar

 

YOURSAY | ‘His govt not without weakness, but may be the best in past 10 years.’

Academic hits back at Rafizi's 'unkindest' criticism of Anwar

EmEmKay: National Unity Advisory Council member Tajuddin Rasdi’s core argument is simple: Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s resilience and commitment to public service cannot be dismissed as mere hunger for power.

Tajuddin notes Anwar’s long arc of struggle, including police brutality and imprisonment, to suggest that those who believe Anwar is chiefly motivated by self-advancement miss the more significant narrative of sacrifice and persistence.

In Tajuddin’s view, insisting that Anwar is “preoccupied with becoming prime minister” ignores the cost of his political battles and the obstacles he faced within a turbulent era of Malay politics.

Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli, on the other hand, frames leadership in terms of public service and governance rather than personal ambition.

He argues that the nation should not measure a leader by the intensity of the fixation on the premiership but by tangible outcomes for the rakyat.

Rafizi’s critique is part of a broader challenge to the culture of leadership in which prestige and position are treated as ends in themselves.

His comments reflect a belief that accountability and policy-focused scrutiny are necessary, especially after a high-profile career characterised by dramatic shifts and cabinet changes.

We should look back at Malaysia’s political history, including the period when Anwar faced demonisation by figures like former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and the Umno machine.

Anwar’s long struggle against powerful incumbents, including Najib and entrenched interests - sometimes described as the “deep state” - can complicate governance even after a shift in leadership.

In this light, Anwar’s ascent to the premiership is not merely a victory for one man but a test of how to reform and navigate a political ecosystem with enduring power blocs.

Had Anwar not challenged the status quo, Malaysia might have remained under a one-party system, where corruption could have become more deeply embedded in the state’s practices.”A balanced acknowledgement of both sides.

Tajuddin’s defence emphasises the personal costs of opposing a dominant political order and the courage required to pursue reform at great personal risk.

Rafizi’s stance pushes for clarity, transparency, and performance in governance, reminding readers that leadership should be judged by results and integrity, not by public image or longevity in power.

The tension between these viewpoints reflects the complexity of Malaysia’s democratic evolution - from a predominantly one-party frame to a more plural and competitive landscape.

Political critique is most productive when it foregrounds evidence, policy implications, and practical reforms rather than personal attacks.

Second, the discourse around Anwar’s leadership ought to grapple with the realities of power - how to balance reform with the pressures of entrenched interests, and how to maintain accountability in a system where institutions and personalities intertwine.

Third, the debate underscores the need for a healthier political culture - one that prizes transparency, integrity, and civil, evidence-based dialogue over rhetoric and denigration.

As the country continues to navigate its evolving political landscape, what standards should guide political criticism in a democracy where power, history, and institutions are so interwoven?

ScarletOtter1800: At the outset, I must say, I am not really a fan of the prime minister and his “cronies” (I don't mind the capable ones, though).

But, I must say this, of all the prime ministers in the last 10 years, Anwar still comes out as the best... at least so far.

That’s not saying his government is without weaknesses or shortcomings.

I cannot imagine if this country were run by any other leaders from any other political parties.

Be fair when judging people.

Rafizi is becoming more and more emotional than realistic.

Now that he is out, talk is cheap! I am less and less keen to pay attention to him.

Anybody can talk. Anybody can criticise. But very few leaders can really deliver.

Chefoo: Everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

Rafizi knows Anwar more closely than any of us, as he worked and looked up to him. His comments are bitter in nature, but it’s his prerogative and his rights.

Many of us believed in Anwar, and his premiership would bring a more balanced administration to all Malaysians. But we are back with Umno and their bullying ways.

The part that hurts most is that Anwar doesn’t dare open his mouth to the unscrupulous comments made by them.

So it’s not surprising for the majority of us to think that his silence on many matters is like a prerequisite to holding on to power.

Perhaps this is what prompted Rafizi’s comment.

PurpleKiwi1935: Rafizi is no less power-driven than many other politicians.

There is no need to project an image of moral superiority. He is not the same as his party leader, Anwar.

If Rafizi truly believes in democratic principles, he should clearly explain why he chose to resign after losing the PKR election and his deputy president post to Nurul Izzah.

Losing an internal election is part of the democratic process.

Attacking the party leadership after losing support from PKR members reflects poorly on his character.

Such behaviour is neither gracious nor statesmanlike. A true gentleman accepts defeat with dignity.

Stay calm: To be a good leader, you must first learn to be a good follower.

When the time comes for you to lead, you will naturally expect others to move in tune with your vision.

No one lasts forever in a leadership role. When the time comes, you should be given the space to carry out what you believe is right.

Two people can’t share 100 percent the same vision and objectives.

What one leader may have missed or disagreed with, the next can refine and implement.

That is how progress happens - through continuity, improvement, and fresh perspective.

Thesaint: Rafizi is a very brilliant personality. He articulates issues very clearly and comprehensively.

I can confidently say he was extremely instrumental in Pakatan Harapan’s success and convincing voters to support Harapan in the previous general elections.

I pray he continues doing so. Look at the big picture and the horizon ahead.

However, passing judgment on others is not a very kind thing to do.

Yes, go ahead and be constructive even to the extent of being critical of a leader’s actions, policy, and strategies.

But touching on a person’s personality or comparing with one’s own is not within our remit or competence.

Many of us here agree that Anwar and Harapan’s reform promises are way below expectations. But at no point should we hit out at him as a person.

Any leader can be replaced. Rafizi, you may not want to be prime minister, but we may want you. You are already public property the day you offered yourself and won your MP seat.

VioletGoose0930: Rafizi's remarks are based on his personal observations.

As an apolitical observer, I can see and understand Rafizi's opinion, which I largely agree with.

Your opinion, Tajuddin, is your opinion, and it probably makes sense to you.

However, having read some of your opinion pieces, I sense that you are rather overwhelmed by Madani and, particularly, by Anwar.

It’s lopsided and doesn’t appear totally equitable. Go ahead, continue to state your case. It’s good for thinking people to observe the field.

Fair Play: By taking sides, it appears that you, Tajuddin, are no different from the overflowing academic armchair critics.

Rafizi expressed his view as a politician working side-by-side with Anwar to fulfil the aspirations of the rakyat that placed their faith in their prime minister. - Mkini